After-Birth Abortion: Is Infanticide Wrong?

[Tom Sawyer]

On the basis that we as a society have decided that human life is valuable and taking it is an egregious act. There's no inherent value to anything, including human life, beyond that which we give it ourselves. Personally, I think this is a good thing because a society which values human life without any conditions seems to me to be a better society than one which does not and gives sub-human status to various members of the society based on their age, race, gender, mental status or anything else. If you're looking for an external, objective basis for the position, there's not one anymore than there's one for anything else which we value. We decided that they matter so they matter - that's pretty much the only reason that anything ever matters.

So, if we were living in an era where we hadn't yet decided that they matter, it would be okay to murder them? Do you think it was wrong to murder blacks when we as a society had not yet decided that they were valuable? If so, why?

Yes, I just said that I think it was wrong because, in my opinion, societies which value human life are better to me than those which don't. That doesn't make it somehow less subjective, though, and have that value be based on an external objective criteria as opposed to it having value because we decided we want it to have value.

 

[Elixir]

That's the question. Some would say consciousness or self-awareness is the key. If so, the gentlemen in the article above argue that we should be allowed to kill newborns, as it hasn't arisen in them yet. Is something else the key? What makes the taking of a newborn's life wrong?

Why is any murder wrong? Why does consciousness or self-awareness matter?

I absolutely MURDERED a whole plate full of peas last night. Guess I should be brought up on genocide charges? Legumocide?
In some places people kill their already born offspring for such offenses as seeking an education, marrying (or consorting) outside their parents' "faith" etc.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think that whether the child is inside or outside the mother's body matters for both legality and morality, but far moreso for legality.

The right not to be killed, like all rights, is a legal invention. A good one, but still a matter of legality that we cannot ascribe to all things in all situations, or we couldn't eat or defend ourselves. To ensure consistent application of such a legal principle, we must ascribe that right to all organisms that fall within a category that can be specified by clearcut objective facts, so that there can be no doubt when a person must not violate that right and no doubt when they have.
Thus, we have and should have a legal rule that the right to life (to not be killed by another) is ascribed to all organisms that meet the objective criteria of having been birthed by a human mother. We can and do specify other objective rules that grant some lesser level of rights to other organisms that don't meet this criteria, such as those that protect pre-brith fetuses and some animals from needless abuse and suffering. This rule will make infanticide a crime and abortion not a crime.

Using the moment of birth as the legal criteria makes perfect sense, both because it is an objectively verifiable moment, and because it keeps the right to life from becoming in conflict with the right to self-determine one's own body (without which the right to life has little value). Pre-birth restrictions on abortions inherently intrude upon a mother's right to self-determine their body.

But all that involves issues of pragmatism and our ability to apply the law consistently based on objective evidence and to avoid bias and abuse in the application of the law, which undermines its legitimacy and the social contract.
That doesn't really apply to whether a particular act should be judged as immoral. Plenty of acts that we should regard as immoral need to remain legal for those pragmatic reasons, and plenty of moral acts need to be treated as violations of the law.

Take a woman that decides at 27 weeks to kill the fetus that she deliberately conceived but now they just got a new job letting them travel the world and an infant would make that impossible. Compare that act to a woman who got raped but chose to have the baby, but then it suffered trauma during birth and was born with severe long long defects which basically means that it lacks 90% of the traits that phenotypically define a human being despite being genetically human, and is less "human" cognitively and behaviorally than the average dog. So, she kills the newborn.

I don't think that any remotely defensible ethical principles would deem the second woman as engaging in a moral wrong any greater than the first woman, while plenty of reasonable systems could deem the first as more immoral than the second, or at most equal in moral status.

I used extreme examples to illustrate the point that the mere pre vs. post birth difference cannot determine the morality in the way that is should determine the legality. But post birth killing can be less immoral with less extreme circumstances, such the second woman doesn't need to have been raped and could have even chosen to get pregnant, or the first woman could have a reason for her last minute abortion that is not so shallow but still far from anything neccessary to protect her from physical harm.

Note that unlike the rather dichotomous legal/illegal distinction, there is no such dichotomy in morality, but rather a wide continuum where actions stand in relative morality to each other. So, my answer to the OP is that because abortion can be a by-product of self-determination of one's body whereas infanticide cannot have that justification, infanticide will be less morally acceptable on the whole than abortion. Yet, there are plenty of possible exceptions where infanticide is no more immoral (and arguably less so) than some instances of abortion, but we should not expect the law to recognize those exceptions.

 

[Sarpedon]

Has anyone bothered to establish that fetuses are in fact babies?

Some religious sects say that the soul enters the body at conception. Other sects disagree. As we are not religious here, I really think we ought to actually establish some facts before we make hysterical accusations and hyperbolic comparisons.

 

[ZiprHead]

I wouldn't touch this thread with dismal's dick.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Has anyone bothered to establish that fetuses are in fact babies?

Some religious sects say that the soul enters the body at conception. Other sects disagree. As we are not religious here, I really think we ought to actually establish some facts before we make hysterical accusations and hyperbolic comparisons.

This seems to be one of those drunk revelations that turns out not to be too wise. Who has the right to kill any living breathing person?

Comparing a fetus to a born child is just ridiculous. And any person who thinks women should be forced to endure pregnancy and birth and he long term consequences that come from birth are sick fucks. Maybe we should ask if it is moral to kill those sick wackos instead.

 

[Elixir]

Has anyone bothered to establish that fetuses are in fact babies?

Some religious sects say that the soul enters the body at conception. Other sects disagree. As we are not religious here, I really think we ought to actually establish some facts before we make hysterical accusations and hyperbolic comparisons.

This seems to be one of those drunk revelations that turns out not to be too wise. Who has the right to kill any living breathing person?

Comparing a fetus to a born child is just ridiculous. And any person who thinks women should be forced to endure pregnancy and birth and he long term consequences that come from birth are sick fucks. Maybe we should ask if it is moral to kill those sick wackos instead.

I was kinda thinking along those lines... seems like a lot of religious pro-birthers would be happier if they could put the mother to death and save the egg in vitro.
A truly moral opponent of abortion would be out there adopting as many babies as possible, but I don't see that happening either.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Has anyone bothered to establish that fetuses are in fact babies?

Not what this thread is about. This isn't about fetuses. This is about newborns. You ok with killing them? Why or why not?

 

[prideandfall]

So what say you? Should it be considered murder to kill a newborn in his/her crib?

moderation in all things. you can't just go all willy-nilly about everything. putting reasonable restrictions on abortion is fine.
i support abortion only up to the 23rd or 24th trimester. after that, it gets a little complicated.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Thus, we have and should have a legal rule that the right to life (to not be killed by another) is ascribed to all organisms that meet the objective criteria of having been birthed by a human mother.

Using the moment of birth as the legal criteria makes perfect sense, both because it is an objectively verifiable moment, and because it keeps the right to life from becoming in conflict with the right to self-determine one's own body (without which the right to life has little value). Pre-birth restrictions on abortions inherently intrude upon a mother's right to self-determine their body.

You didn't say why we should care to protect the newborn. Saying we need a dividing line and choosing it based on having an objectively verifiable moment, is not giving a reason why we should care to begin with. And once we do care to protect it, that want to protect it coming into conflict with another want (to grant women autonomy over their bodies) doesn't rationally erase the want to protect it, though it may outweigh it when we take both into consideration (depending on how we weigh the bodily autonomy against whatever it is that causes us to want to protect the newborn).

So again, I ask you. Do you care to protect the newborn from the mother killing it/him/her, and if so, why?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I do think that is a better question which requires a more nuanced answer. I guess it depends on how we define 'egregiousness' which could be different for different people. My perspective is that regardless of the age of the murdered, it's the survivors who will remain impacted. It is probably as egregious for parents to lose a newborn as it is for children to lose a parent.

What if the newborn is an orphan who has no family? Does that make it more ok to kill since there are no survivors who will be impacted?

Well, survivors who will be impacted might not be limited to family. Malcolm X, Babe Ruth, Herbert Hoover, Steve Jobs are all famously orphaned children who ended up impacting thousands of millions of lives(there are many more). This curious condition does address the immediately grieving tragedy but not the potential future life and contribution aspect of tragedy.

aa

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Using the moment of birth as the legal criteria makes perfect sense, both because it is an objectively verifiable moment, and because it keeps the right to life from becoming in conflict with the right to self-determine one's own body (without which the right to life has little value). Pre-birth restrictions on abortions inherently intrude upon a mother's right to self-determine their body.

You didn't say why we should care to protect the newborn. Saying we need a dividing line and choosing it based on having an objectively verifiable moment, is not giving a reason why we should care to begin with. And once we do care to protect it, that want to protect it coming into conflict with another want (to grant women autonomy over their bodies) doesn't rationally erase the want to protect it, though it may outweigh it when we take both into consideration (depending on how we weigh the bodily autonomy against whatever it is that causes us to want to protect the newborn).

So again, I ask you. Do you care to protect the newborn from the mother killing it/him/her, and if so, why?

We are fucked as a species if we don't protect the young. May explain why protecting the young is a rather universal operative of mammals.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This thread made me think maybe we should kill adults instead.

 

[TV and credit cards]

No baby asked to be. But since they've made it this far, they deserve a shot at it.
Those not deserving of personhood are those who have shown time and again to be a willful detriment to society, they are the ones not deserving of continued existence.
If we are worthy of picking and choosing which lives are to be terminated, let's not terminate the ones with potential, let's go for the ones that are shown to be a cancer in society.

 

[PyramidHead]

It's not a big surprise to me that most people who bothered to reply aren't really willing to talk about this subject. For one thing, as I said earlier, it's not suited for this forum. Moral questions need to be dissected using a different set of tools than public policy questions, and some issues just aren't ready for the political stage until they've been hashed out philosophically.

Even so, I find it funny that I used the same reasoning in the other thread to defend aborting a fetus--lack of preferences, lack of a sense of self, lack of a concept of time, equivalence to adult mammals from other species--and received several reputation points for it. But when the baby is outside of the womb, none of those arguments seem to hold water anymore, and the pro-choicers join the pro-lifers in making comparisons to Nazi Germany. It's easy to see what change has taken place, but it hasn't taken place in the baby: it's because everybody just went from thinking of a swollen belly with a slimy fetus in it to something with a face and blinking eyes, and the amygdala took over the steering wheel from the frontal lobe.

The few who can ignore that impulse find other ways to avoid thinking about the subject entirely; scratch that, there is really just one way, and it happens every time, without fail: morality is just subjective anyway so none of this is worth talking about. Then, why was the other thread on like page 30 before I even broached the topic of infanticide? Seems like plenty of people have no problem making pronouncements about how others should behave and sticking to their views, even if they aren't completely sure how to logically justify them, but when it comes to certain topics, the conversation isn't even allowed to start.

It's just funny how instantaneously you all dug into ApostateAbe for being a racist/enabler of racists--which he was!--without so much as a punctuation mark about whether treating people differently because of their skin color is another one of those subjective opinions that's not worth discussing.

 

[Sarpedon]

Not what this thread is about. This isn't about fetuses. This is about newborns. You ok with killing them? Why or why not?

It absolutely is what this thread is about. The only reason anyone talks about infanticide is as part of the discussion of abortion. Given you started this thread after the lengthy discussion over at the abortion people thread, and you gave it the ludicrous title of 'after birth abortion,' I find it highly dubious that the two things are unrelated. You are asking me to ignore context. I don't do that. I know a trojan horse when I see it, so does everyone else. No one approves of infanticide. There's no need for this thread at all, except for you to establish that, and then ask 'so why are you for abortion?'

We aren't 'willing' to to discuss the subject, because there is nothing to discuss. We aren't fooled by your childish rhetorical tricks. So let's skip it and get back to the actual controversy.

You give it the title 'after birth abortion' and then pretend it isn't about abortion. Have you no shame at all? I guess this is the sort of argument we need to get used to in the Trump era. People being blatantly, unashamedly dishonest and acting all offended when you point it out.

 

[PyramidHead]

Not what this thread is about. This isn't about fetuses. This is about newborns. You ok with killing them? Why or why not?

It absolutely is what this thread is about. The only reason anyone talks about infanticide is as part of the discussion of abortion. Given you started this thread after the lengthy discussion over at the abortion people thread, I find it highly dubious that the two things are unrelated. You are asking me to ignore context. I don't do that. I know a trojan horse when I see it, so does everyone else. No one approves of infanticide. There's no need for this thread at all, except for you to establish that, and then ask 'so why are you for abortion?'

We aren't 'willing' to to discuss the subject, because there is nothing to discuss. We aren't fooled by your childish rhetorical tricks. So let's skip it and get back to the actual controversy.

I'm sorry Sarpedon, but you're mistaken. This is what I mean about it being the wrong forum. Because the abortion = killing babies meme has been co-opted by the political right in America in order to make demons out of women, any suggestion that they might be correct (but not in the way they want to be) is immediately looked upon with suspicion. Peter Singer made the same observation: if you start a conversation with a pro-lifer by saying nothing magical happens when the baby leaves the womb, they'll call you a compatriot until you ask them when, exactly, that magical personhood-imbuing event happens, and why anyone should think for a second that it happens before birth. Then the pro-lifers get uncomfortable, as they should. But pro-choicers can't just ignore the question on the grounds that their political opponents have used it as ammunition in the past.

 

[PyramidHead]

No baby asked to be. But since they've made it this far, they deserve a shot at it.
Those not deserving of personhood are those who have shown time and again to be a willful detriment to society, they are the ones not deserving of continued existence.
If we are worthy of picking and choosing which lives are to be terminated, let's not terminate the ones with potential, let's go for the ones that are shown to be a cancer in society.

The argument from potential doesn't lead anywhere, because it applies to embryos as well as newborns. Unless you're against killing embryos (including those that aren't yet implanted into a woman's body), it remains to be shown what the important moral differences are between a newborn and an embryo.

 

[Sarpedon]

And that is a conversation I wouldn't mind having. I just don't think that this thread was started to discuss that subject. I don't see why I should play nice when the other side obviously isn't, we've all seen where that gets us. Start your thread in the morality, or better yet, the natural science forum, and I'd be happy to discuss it on those terms.

 

[PyramidHead]

So, if we were living in an era where we hadn't yet decided that they matter, it would be okay to murder them? Do you think it was wrong to murder blacks when we as a society had not yet decided that they were valuable? If so, why?

Yes, I just said that I think it was wrong because, in my opinion, societies which value human life are better to me than those which don't. That doesn't make it somehow less subjective, though, and have that value be based on an external objective criteria as opposed to it having value because we decided we want it to have value.

Tom, values can be subjective without being arbitrary. I can't accurately describe how much I hate the word "subjective". More often than not, it's used as a rubber stamp to denote a topic as unfit for discussion. The fact is that moral viewpoints have consequences that can be evaluated against a background of shared goals. And those goals themselves can be evaluated, must be evaluated, to check if they are guiding us toward consequences that are unpleasant in ways we haven't considered. No society or individual just decides to value something. I don't care that my opinions are opinions. I think my opinions are correct in the context of a moral background that is probably shared by most people. That's the value of moral discussions: not to put the spotlight on something and conjure up a label of 'right' or 'wrong' arbitrarily from thin air, but to show how based on what most people already think is right or wrong, we can deduce a conclusion that not many people have dared to consider.

There are several ways to deal with this information. You can claim that my conception of what people really believe is flawed, and thus my conclusion doesn't apply. You can bite the bullet and say I'm right about what people believe and what it implies, but that it simply means we need to change what we believe. Or, you could simply accept the conclusion as an inevitable consequence of believing what people believe, and incorporate it into your moral compass.

A bad way of dealing with the information is to retreat to the usual mantra that something is wrong because people in your neck of the spatio-temporal woods say so, as if we should all count ourselves lucky enough to be born in the era where we finally figured out morality, and all new questions can therefore be shot down by appealing to the way things currently are.